Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description adds meaningful behavioral details: returns a ranked list ('ranked typeahead'), filters to employers 'with open jobs', lists exact return fields, and describes handling of zero results with do-not-invent-ID and fallback instructions. This greatly exceeds the annotation's minimal safety hint and fully discloses the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is slightly longer than minimal but every sentence adds value: the return format, the trigger conditions, and the fallback rules are all necessary for correct invocation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The length is justified by the complexity of the tool; it isn't verbose. A 4 reflects good balance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with two parameters, an output schema, and several behavioral nuances, the description is thorough. It covers what the tool returns (fields), the scope of the index (open jobs), when to use it, and how to handle empty results with explicit next steps. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and decide when to use it. The presence of an output schema also reduces the need to exhaustively describe return values. This is a near-perfect contextual package.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics: 'q' is a 'ranked typeahead' and the index covers only employers with open jobs, which clarifies the meaning beyond the raw schema. This adds meaningful value but doesn't dramatically change the parameters' semantics, so a 4 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the specific verb 'search', the resource 'Worklittle market company index', and the exact retrieval goal ('by name or slug'). It also differentiates itself from sibling search_jobs by explicitly connecting the output (slug/id) to search_jobs filters. This enables an agent to select it correctly without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states when to use: when the user names an employer and you need a real slug/id for search_jobs company filters, job alerts, or automations. It also provides fallback steps and exclusions (never invent ids). While it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools for when not to use it, the context makes it clear. A score of 4 reflects this good but not exhaustive guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.